I think you need to be careful with statements like "Atlantic Canada requires an aggressive investment program, with funding increases focusing predominately on industry-driven applied R&D. "

If 'industry-driven' means that the program is driven in such a way as to develop the region's industrial capacity, then that is fine.

if, however, the phrase is interpreted in such a way as to be interpreted as 'industry directed' then this is less fine. While I can agree that industry should be a beneficiary of research, I don't believe that it is in the best position to direct the distribution of those benefits.

- first, industry is often not in the same position as research to understand the need or potential for a given applictaio n. Often, industry representatives respond to a proposal with an erroneous "it can't be done" or "nobody needs this" response.

- second, industry is not supportive of R&D that could undercut its existing business. Hence, for example, a paper company would be interested only in technologies that increased the use and utility of paper, and not technologies that replace paper, even if these technologies are more viable.

- third, industry is often focused on the short-term and is not interested in an R&D program that will not produce immediate next-fiscal-year return on investment

- fourth, existing industries, especially in a small region such as the Maritimes, seek to direct all investment to existing entities, and away from new entities or those that might move in from other regions.

For these reasons, an industrial R&D strategy, even if it is driven by industry needs, should be determined at the public level, and not by the industries that might stand to directly benefit from the allocation of public funds.